Fido backports

Fido backports

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Martin,
Hello Armin,

Please queue following backports for Fido:

# Fixes
6ea7ac01
607b114d

If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:

# Upgrade
2c57f950a

# New recipe
2315f412f6

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: Fido backports

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 03:08:27PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> Hello Armin,
> 
> Please queue following backports for Fido:
> 
> # Fixes
> 6ea7ac01
> 607b114d
> 
> If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:
> 
> # Upgrade
> 2c57f950a
> 
> # New recipe
> 2315f412f6

All 4 pushed to fido-next, but I'm still listening for objections.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: Fido backports

[akuster808]

On 09/18/2015 05:09 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 03:08:27PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>> Hello Armin,
>>
>> Please queue following backports for Fido:
>>
>> # Fixes
>> 6ea7ac01
>> 607b114d

Acked-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>

for the two above.

>>
>> If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:
>>
>> # Upgrade
>> 2c57f950a

Is going from 0.9.2 -> 1.2.1 bug or security fixes ? Give me a real good
reason to allow this.

>>
>> # New recipe
>> 2315f412f6
> 

I thought adding new recipes to a maintenance branch was not allowed ?

- armin

> All 4 pushed to fido-next, but I'm still listening for objections.
> 

Re: Fido backports

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:59 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:
>>>
>>> # Upgrade
>>> 2c57f950a
>
> Is going from 0.9.2 -> 1.2.1 bug or security fixes ? Give me a real good
> reason to allow this.

Neither that I am aware of. That is why I split those two as I knew
this need discussion.

We need this for one project and we can keep using a local backport;
this was just for reduce delta for something which seems safe.

>>> # New recipe
>>> 2315f412f6
>
> I thought adding new recipes to a maintenance branch was not allowed ?

I think it depends on situation. I think we ought to avoid adding new
features when possible, specially for old branches as this motivates
people to upgrade.

Have said that, I am biased here so I prefer to not argument in favor
of inclusion or not. As the upgrade, we can keep a local backport for
it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: Fido backports

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:23:02PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:59 PM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If noone has objections I would like to propose the backport of:
> >>>
> >>> # Upgrade
> >>> 2c57f950a
> >
> > Is going from 0.9.2 -> 1.2.1 bug or security fixes ? Give me a real good
> > reason to allow this.
> 
> Neither that I am aware of. That is why I split those two as I knew
> this need discussion.

OK, then I would prefer you to keep them in local backport.

There were few exceptions to this rule about no-new-features, but they
usually had some good clarifications or were at least some minor
upgrades to newer bugfix release.

> We need this for one project and we can keep using a local backport;
> this was just for reduce delta for something which seems safe.
> 
> >>> # New recipe
> >>> 2315f412f6
> >
> > I thought adding new recipes to a maintenance branch was not allowed ?
> 
> I think it depends on situation. I think we ought to avoid adding new
> features when possible, specially for old branches as this motivates
> people to upgrade.
> 
> Have said that, I am biased here so I prefer to not argument in favor
> of inclusion or not. As the upgrade, we can keep a local backport for
> it.

With new recipe my thoughts are the same as above, if we all try to push
our backport delta, then there would be too many changes and eventually
more regressions in release branch - only if many people report that they
all need the same feature backport to resolve some needs, then we should
make exceptions.

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]